We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Comparing Mini Sarcopenia Risk Assessment With SARC-F for Screening Sarcopenia in Community-Dwelling Older Adults.
OBJECTIVE: The Mini Sarcopenia Risk Assessment (MSRA), a new sarcopenia screening tool, has 2 versions: MSRA-7 (full version, 7 items) and MSRA-5 (short version, 5 items). We aimed to compare the diagnostic values of MSRA-7 and MSRA-5 to SARC-F for screening sarcopenia.
DESIGN: A diagnostic accuracy study.
SETTING: A community in Chengdu, China.
PARTICIPANTS: Older adults.
MEASUREMENTS: Muscle mass, strength, and physical performance were tested using a bioimpedance analysis (BIA) device, handgrip strength, and walking speed, respectively. Using the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia (AWGS) criteria as the gold standard, the sensitivity/specificity analyses of the 3 scales were assessed. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and area under the ROC curves (AUC) were used to compare the overall diagnostic accuracy of the 3 scales.
RESULTS: We recruited 384 participants. Against the AWGS criteria, SARC-F had a sensitivity of 29.5% and a specificity of 98.1%, and the MSRA-7 had a sensitivity of 86.9% and a specificity of 39.6%, whereas the MSRA-5 had a sensitivity of 90.2% and a specificity of 70.6%. The AUCs of SARC-F, MSRA-7, and MSRA-5 were 0.89 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.86-0.92], 0.70 (95% CI, 0.65-0.74), and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.81-0.89), respectively. The differences in AUCs between SARC-F and MSRA-7 and in those between MSRA-7 and MSRA-5 were statistically significant (P <.001), but the difference between SARC-F and MSRA-5 was not statistically significant (P = .130).
CONCLUSION: MSRA-5 may serve as a novel screening tool for sarcopenia in Chinese community-dwelling older adults. SARC-F, a class screening tool, is also suitable for this population. MSRA-5 and SARC-F demonstrated a similar diagnostic accuracy in our study population. MSRA-5 has better sensitivity, whereas SARC-F has better specificity. However, the diagnostic value of MSRA needs to be further validated in different populations.
DESIGN: A diagnostic accuracy study.
SETTING: A community in Chengdu, China.
PARTICIPANTS: Older adults.
MEASUREMENTS: Muscle mass, strength, and physical performance were tested using a bioimpedance analysis (BIA) device, handgrip strength, and walking speed, respectively. Using the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia (AWGS) criteria as the gold standard, the sensitivity/specificity analyses of the 3 scales were assessed. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and area under the ROC curves (AUC) were used to compare the overall diagnostic accuracy of the 3 scales.
RESULTS: We recruited 384 participants. Against the AWGS criteria, SARC-F had a sensitivity of 29.5% and a specificity of 98.1%, and the MSRA-7 had a sensitivity of 86.9% and a specificity of 39.6%, whereas the MSRA-5 had a sensitivity of 90.2% and a specificity of 70.6%. The AUCs of SARC-F, MSRA-7, and MSRA-5 were 0.89 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.86-0.92], 0.70 (95% CI, 0.65-0.74), and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.81-0.89), respectively. The differences in AUCs between SARC-F and MSRA-7 and in those between MSRA-7 and MSRA-5 were statistically significant (P <.001), but the difference between SARC-F and MSRA-5 was not statistically significant (P = .130).
CONCLUSION: MSRA-5 may serve as a novel screening tool for sarcopenia in Chinese community-dwelling older adults. SARC-F, a class screening tool, is also suitable for this population. MSRA-5 and SARC-F demonstrated a similar diagnostic accuracy in our study population. MSRA-5 has better sensitivity, whereas SARC-F has better specificity. However, the diagnostic value of MSRA needs to be further validated in different populations.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app